MAYBANK SINGAPORE LIMITED v DYNAMIQ SOLUTION PTE. LTD.

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 219 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, Interpretation Act (Cap 1), and Restructuring and Dissolution Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC 219 High Court (General Division) 28 August 2024 HC/CWU 162/2024 18 min read

2 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	28 August 2024
Judge	Goh Yihan
Charges / claim	Insolvency Law
Counsel	Adsan Law LLC, Insolvency & Public Trustee's Office, Iman Mohamad Fong, Jeffrey Yip, Lim Yew Jin

Source: [2024] SGHC 219, High Court (General Division), decided 28 August 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Insolvency Law — Winding up — Service of statutory demand — Requirements for proper service of statutory demand in Section 125(2)(a) Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) and Section 48A Interpretation Act 1965 (2020 Rev Ed) to trigger presumption of insolvency for company to be wound up

Practice Areas

Insolvency Law

Judges (1)

Goh Yihan Delivered

Counsel (5)

Adsan Law LLC Firm Insolvency & Public Trustee's Office Firm Iman Mohamad Fong Counsel Claimant Jeffrey Yip Counsel Non-Party Lim Yew Jin Counsel Non-Party

Parties (3)

Dynamiq Solution Pte Ltd Defendant Maybank Singapore Limited Claimant Official Receiver Non-Party

Case Significance

Maybank Singapore Ltd v Dynamiq Solution Pte Ltd (Official Receiver, non-party) [2024] SGHC 219 was decided by Goh Yihan J in the General Division of the High Court in Companies Winding Up No 162 of 2024, brought in the matter of Sections 125(1)(e) and 125(2)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. The application was by Maybank Singapore Limited, as claimant, for a winding up order against Dynamiq Solution Pte Ltd. Ms Iman Mohamad Fong appeared for the claimant, while Mr Lim Yew Jin and Jeffrey Yip appeared for the Official Receiver as non-party; the defendant was absent and unrepresented.

After hearing Ms Fong and Mr Lim on 12 July 2024, the court made the winding up order against the defendant on 12 August 2024, with the grounds of decision issued on 28 August 2024. As recorded in the judgment, the application raised a number of issues concerning the service of statutory demands pursuant to s 125(2)(a) of the IRDA and the requirements for proper service to trigger the presumption of insolvency, read together with Section 48A of the Interpretation Act 1965 (2020 Rev Ed), as well as the service of winding up applications. Adsan Law LLC acted for the claimant and the Insolvency & Public Trustee's Office for the non-party.

[2024] SGHC 219 explained

MAYBANK SINGAPORE LIMITED v DYNAMIQ SOLUTION PTE. LTD. ([2024] SGHC 219) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 28 August 2024. It is categorised under Insolvency Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 219 about?

MAYBANK SINGAPORE LIMITED v DYNAMIQ SOLUTION PTE. LTD. ([2024] SGHC 219) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Insolvency Law — Winding up — Service of statutory demand — Requirements for proper service of statutory demand in Section 125(2)(a) Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) and Section 48A Interpretation Act 1965 (2020 Rev Ed) to trigger presumption of insolvency for company to be wound up”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 219 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, Interpretation Act (Cap 1), and Restructuring and Dissolution Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGHC 219 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 192. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

Maybank Singapore Limited applied to wind up Dynamiq Solution Pte Ltd under ss 125(1)(e) and 125(2)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, alleging the company owed about $186,870.19 under a Micro Loan Account, with the application raising issues about proper service of a statutory demand and of the winding-up application; the defendant was absent and unrepresented. Goh Yihan J was satisfied that the demand and the application had been properly served and that, as the defendant did not respond within the prescribed three-week period, it was presumed unable to pay its debts. The winding-up order and consequent orders were made against the defendant.

What did Maybank Singapore Ltd v Dynamiq Solution Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 219 decide?

Goh Yihan J made a winding up order on 12 August 2024 against Dynamiq Solution Pte Ltd on Maybank Singapore Limited's application in Companies Winding Up No 162 of 2024. The grounds, issued 28 August 2024, addressed proper service of statutory demands under s 125(2)(a) of the IRDA.

What statutory provisions were at issue in the Dynamiq Solution winding up case ([2024] SGHC 219)?

The application engaged Sections 125(1)(e) and 125(2)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, concerning service of statutory demands, read with Section 48A of the Interpretation Act 1965, to trigger the presumption of insolvency for a company to be wound up.